Thesis  Proposal  
 
Self-­‐monitoring  and  effective  leadership  
 
The  moderating  role  of  team  identification  and  prosocial  motivation  
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
Elisa  Roelofs    
419185  
 
Rotterdam  School  of  Management  
MSc  Human  Resource  Management  
 
2015  
 
Supervisor:  Dr.  S.R.  Giessner  
Co-­‐reader:  …
 1. Introduction

What makes a leader an effective leader? Behaviour associated with effective leadership is

extensively researched in literature (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Effective leadership is important

as it is necessary for optimal performance of teams and organizations (Yukl, 2012). Two

dimensions that have recently regained attention in this respect are consideration and

initiating structure. These dimensions refer to the extent that leaders show task-oriented and

relationship-oriented behaviour towards their team members, and are associated with effective

leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Insights in antecedents of effective leadership behaviours

are especially relevant for organizations and HR-professionals to optimize leader

effectiveness.

To display effective leadership behaviour, leaders need to be able to understand the needs of

their followers and adapt their behaviour to the environment and external factors (Bass &

Riggio, 2005; Burns, 1978; Zaccaro, Foti & Kenny, 1991). A construct that is closely related

to such an ability is self-monitoring. High self-monitors have a high level of understanding

different social situations and can vary their behaviours accordingly. Consequently, a link

between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness in terms of consideration and initiating

structure should be expected. Previous research indicates a relationship between self-

monitoring and leadership emergence (Snyder, 1987). Unfortunately, there has been little

research on the relationship between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness. In fact,

research mostly focuses on leadership emergence (Day, Shleicher, Unckless & Hiller, 2002;

Zaccaro et al., 1991). This study extends previous literature by focusing on effectiveness. It is

important to research the relationship between self-monitoring and effectiveness separately

because the concepts of effectiveness and emergence are not interchangeable. For example, it

has been shown that there is a difference between succesful managers (in terms of emergence)

and effective managers in how they spend their time on different activities (Luthans, 1988;
Luthans, Hodgetts & Rosenkrantz, 1988). To fill this gap, this study investigates the link

between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness in terms of consideration and initiating

structure. The current study focuses on this link in the context of teams.

Self-monitoring is a personality trait. Contingency theories of leadership have taught

us that situational factors play an important role in the relationship between leadership

effectiveness and behaviour (Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971). Leadership does not occur in

isolation but in a social context (Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor and Mumford, 1991). This is

especially relevant with regard to high self-monitors who easily adapt to situational cues. It is

therefore important to look at specific situations in which high self-monitoring is associated

with effective leadership. Therefore the question is raised: under what conditions is high self-

monitoring associated with leader effectiveness in terms of consideration and initiating

structure? In other words, under what situations do high (versus low) self-monitors adapt their

behaviours in the interest of the team? This study focuses on team identification as a

moderating factor. Based on previous literature, it can be concluded that leaders who identify

with a team are more likely to behave in the interest of the team (Giessner, Van Knippenberg,

Van Ginkel & Sleebos, 2013). The current study aims to determine whether this relationship

also exists when it comes to consideration and initiating structure. This study thus takes a

social identity perspective to investigate whether team identification plays a moderating role.

Furthermore, this study focuses on prosocial motivation as a moderating factor of the

interaction effect of team identification on consideration. It can be argued that this effect is

stronger for highly (versus lowly) prosocially motivated leaders, because they are generally

more likely to show behaviour directed towards the team, and because this tendency is

strengthened if they are intrinsically motivated (Grant 2007; Grant, 2008). Because it is

expected that team identification provides such an intrinsic motivation, prosocial motivation

is expected to moderate the interaction effect of team identification on consideration.

 This study aims to explore to what extent self-monitoring is related to effective

leadership in terms of consideration and initiating structure, and to what extent team

identification and prosocial motivation play a moderating role in this relation. This study

contributes to existing literature in the following ways. First of all, it extends knowledge

about antecedents of effective leadership behaviour and about the relationship between self-

monitoring and leadership. Additionally, it extends the application of the theoretical

perspective of social identity theory to leadership effectiveness, and applies this to a leader

perspective.

2. Literature review

Effective leadership behaviour

Previous research identified various dimensions of effective leadership. Research on

leadership evolved from trait theories to behavioural theories, to contingency theories

(Fiedler, 1967; Geier, 1967; House, 1971; Kahn & Katz, 1960; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;

Stogdill & Coons, 1951). Two main behavioral dimensions of leadership which are associated

with effective leadership have been identified in the Ohio State studies: consideration and

initiating structure (Stogdill & Coons, 1951). However, since their introduction these concepts

have moved from promising constructs to ‘forgotten’ ones. Methodological and conceptual

arguments challenged the validity of the construct (Fleischman, 1995; Schriesheim & Kerr,

1974). Yet, more recent research by Judge and colleagues (2004) reexamined the validity of

these constructs and concluded that the two constructs are associated with multiple aspects of

effective leadership. These constructs as indicators of effective leadership should therefore

not be prematurely dismissed. The current study thus considers effective leadership in terms

of these two constructs. Consideration refers to the extent to which leaders show respect for

followers and their ideas, show concern for their feelings and welfare, provide support and
appreciation, and the extent to which their relationships with followers includes mutual trust

(Bass, 1990; Judge et al., 2004; Stogdill & Coons, 1951). Consideration thus reflects

relationship-oriented behaviour of a leader. Initiating structure on the other hand, reflects

task-oriented behaviour. This construct refers to the extent to which leaders define, structure

and organize their role and the role of their followers aiming at goal attainment, and the extent

to which leaders establish and structure communication channels and patterns towards this

goal attainment (Judge et al., 2004; Stogdill & Coons, 1951).

Both consideration and intiating structure are associated with multiple attributes of

effective leadership. Judge and colleagues (2004) showed support for a relationship between

these behaviours and follower satisfaction (regarding their job and their leader) and leader

performance and effectiveness. What is especially interesting is that there is a difference in

emphasis. High consideration in leaders is relatively more strongly associated with higher job

satisfaction and higher motivation, whereas high initiating structure is relatively more

strongly associated with higher levels of performance and productivity (Judge et al., 2004).

Therefore it is important to treat these two behaviours separately, reflecting different aspects

of effective leadership.

The question then remains, what kind of leaders display these behaviours and under

what conditions? When researching effective leadership it is highly relevant to understand

antecedents of behaviours. Therefore, in an attempt to extend current research, this study

focuses on self-monitoring as a possible antecedent of initiating structure and consideration

and team identification as a moderating factor of this relationship.

Self-monitoring

For a leader to be effective it is important to understand the needs of followers and to adapt to

external factors. This study examines the concept of self-monitoring as a potential antecedent
of leadership effectiveness in terms of consideration and initiating structure. Self-monitoring

refers to the extent to which a person is able to adjust his or her behaviour to situational and

external factors (Snyder, 1987). High self monitors are sensitive to social cues, are concerned

for social appropriateness and have high adaptability in their behaviour to different situations

(Briggs, Cheek & Buss, 1980; Snyder, 1974). A relationship has been indicated between self

monitoring and leadership emergence (Day et al., 2002; Snyder, 1987). However, the

relationship with effectiveness has received less attention, and sometimes the concepts of

effectiveness and emergence are used interchangeably. That these two constructs should not

be regarded as synonymous can be derived from a study by Luthans and colleagues (1988)

which indicates that succesful managers (in terms of emergence) spend their time differently

than effective managers. For example, succesful managers spend more time networking

whereas effective leaders spend more time communicating (Luthans et al., 1988). It is thus

important to separately research the link between effectiveness and leader emergence as well

as leadership effectiveness.

As identified by Zaccaro and colleagues (1991), social intelligence, social expertise and

behavioral flexibility towards different situational and social demands, which are associated

with leader emergence, are also predictors of leadership effectiveness. However, no research

on the relationship between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness has been conducted

since then (Day et al., 2002). The current study therefore focuses on this relationship and

predicts that a similar relationship exists between self-monitoring and leader effectiveness in

terms of consideration and initiating structure. Therefore, the first hypothesis and second

hypothesis of this study are:

Hypothesis 1: Self-monitoring will be positively related to initiating structure.

Hypothesis 2: Self-monitoring will be positively related to consideration.

Because high (versus low) self-monitors are highly adaptable in their behaviour, it can be

expected that this relationship will be influenced by several moderating factors. Self-monitors

can disguise their private person and show different ‘faces’, leading to low behavioral

consistency (Snyder, 1987). It thus does not have to mean that because they are able to adapt,

that they will adapt in the interest of the team. Research indicated that high self-monitors are

associated with less commitment to their organization (Day et al., 2002). Furthermore, self-

montoring has mostly been associated with positive performance that is related to the leader

him or herself such as career mobility, promotion, position (Kilduff & Day, 1994; Mehra,

Kilduff & Brass, 2001). So the question should be asked: When do high self-monitoring

leaders use their ability to adapt their behaviour in the interest of the team and display

behaviours such as initiating structure and consideration? Given the inconsistency in literature

about the relationship between self-monitoring and effective leadership, this study considers

team identification as a moderating factor. Previous research indicates that team identification

draws attention to the team and directs behaviour (Richter, West, Van Dick & Dawson, 2006).

Consequently, it should play a crucial role to understand the relationship between self-

monitoring and effective leadership.

Team identification

The first moderating factor that will be considered is team identification of the leader. It is

predicted that if leaders identify with a team, they will use their abilities as high self-monitors

to display initiating structure and consideration.

Based on the Social Identity Theory it is argued that people consider themselves as part of a

group and define themselves in terms of shared characteristics of a group (Tajfel & Turner,

1986). Identification refers to the self-categorization as a group member (Turner, Hogg,

Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) and a feeling of psychological intertwinement with the

group and its fate (Ashfort & Mael, 1989). With regard to teams, identification is the sense of

belonging with the team, the acknowledgement and valuement of being part of the team and

the sharing of norms and behaviour codes (Solansky, 2011). Identification directs one’s

values, attitudes and behaviours (Richter et al., 2006). A strong social identification with a

group is associated with behaviour in the group’s interest (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Cicero,

Bonaiuto, Pierro, & Van Knippenberg, 2008; Haslam, 2001). Recent research has indicated a

similar relationship with regard to leaders’ identification and leader behaviour (Giessner et al.,

2013). This research shows that leaders who identify with a team, and who categorize

themselves as a group member, are more likely to behave in the interest of the team (Giessner

et al., 2013). It is assumed that leaders with a strong identification towards their team take the

interests of the team at heart and care more for the team than leaders who identify less with

the team. Furthermore, team identification implies that a leader feels part of the team and

regards the fate of the team as his or her own fate. This also has consequences for their

leadership behaviour towards the team: it is likely that leaders act in a more team-oriented

way in a situation of strong team identification than in a situation of weak team identification.

Given this assumption, high self-monitoring leaders compared to low self-monitoring leaders

are especially suited to understand and recognize the needs of the team and act upon these

needs. This will be particularly the case if they identify strongly with the team.

Therefore, this study predicts that under the condition of high team identification (versus low

identification) high self-monitoring leaders use their adaptability in altering their behaviour

towards serving the interest and needs of the team. Consideration and initiating structure are

regarded as behaviours that serve the interest and needs of the team. It is thus hypothesized

that a high self monitoring leader is more likely to show consideration and initiating structure

if he or she identifies with the team. Therefore the third and fourth hypothesis are as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between self-monitoring of a leader and consideration is

positively moderated by team identification; such that the greater the team identification of a

leader, the stronger the relationship between the level of self-monitoring of a leader and

consideration.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between self-monitoring of a leader and initiating structure is

positively moderated by team identification; such that the greater the team identification of a

leader, the stronger the relationship between the level of self-monitoring of a leader and

initiating structure.

Prosocial motivation

The extent to which team identification moderates the relationship between self-monitoring

and consideration is expected to be moderated by prosocial motivation. Previous research

conceptualized prosocial motivation as a personality trait or as a psychological state (Batson,

1987; De Dreu, 2006; Grant, 2007). The current study conceptualises prosocial motivation as

an individual difference measure, and defines prosocial motivation as a desire to expend effort

out of a concern for other people and to engage in work that is beneficial to others (Batson,

1998; De Dreu 2006; Grant, 2007). Prosocial motivation in a work context is associated with

job performance, personal initiative and organizational citizenship (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009).

This includes helping behaviour (Grant, 2007). Prosocial motivation also means a focus on

achieving a meaningful goal (Batson, 1998). Prosocial motivation can have different roots.

For example, people can be prosocially motivated because they generally care about others.

However, prosocial motivation does not automatically imply altruism, as people can also be
prosocially motivated because it makes them feel good about themselves, or because they care

for their membership in a group (Batson, Ahmad, Powell & Stocks, 2008; De Dreu, 2006).

High prosocial motivation thus means a stronger motivation to show behaviour directed

towards others. Consideration, reflecting the relationship-oriented behaviour of a leader, is an

example of such behaviour. Furthermore, as argued by Grant (2008), prosocial behaviour is

displayed especially when people are also intrinsically motivated. It is expected that a high

level of team identification may function as an intrinsic motivator for prosocial behaviour.

Since consideration is as an example of behaviour directed towards others, and since team

identification is expected to function as an intrinsic motivator for prosocial behaviour, this

study expects a three-way interaction between prosocial motivation, team identification and

consideration. Specifically, this study predicts that for highly (versus lowly) prosocially

motivated leaders, the moderation effect of team identification on the relationship between

self-monitoring and consideration, as outlined in hypothesis 3, is stronger. This study argues

that for leaders high on prosocial motivation, the effect of team identification may be stronger

because team identification in turn fuels their prosocial motivation. This means that the

strongest effect of self-monitoring on consideration is expected for a leader with high team

identification and high prosocial motivation. The fifth hypothesis of this study is therefore as

follows:

Hypothesis 5: Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between team-identification

and the relationship beween self-monitoring and consideration, such that a high (versus low)

prosocial motivation corresponds to a stronger moderation effect of team identification on the

relationship between self-monitoring and consideration.

 The five hypotheses together form the conceptual framework of this study as depicted by

figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

identification
Leader team identification

 
Leader prosocial motivation

Consideration
Leader self-monitoring

 
Initiating structure
   

Leader’s perspective Follower’s perspective

 3. Method

Sample and Procedure

A quantitative field study will be conducted. A quantitative study is chosen because the aim

of this study is to test hypotheses based on previous literature. This implies that a quantitative

study is more suitable than a qualitative study whereby the aim is to generate new theory

(Neuman, 2001; Newman & Benz, 1998). Furthermore, this study aims to gather

generalizable objective data rather than subjective data and interpretations, which is another

reason why a quantitative study will be performed (Newman & Benz, 1998). A field study

(versus an experimental study) is chosen because this type of study allows for high external

validity and generalizability, since it is conducted in real world environments (Neuman,

2001). It should be kept in mind however that a field study implies that no causal inferences

can be drawn from the study.

A heterogeneous sample will be drawn from professional teams in various industries in The

Netherlands. Seventy-five teams will be invited to participate. This will be done in

collaboration with two other students. The unit of analysis will be the team leader. The

dependent variable will be collected from the followers, and the independent variable and

moderators from the leader.

Team leaders and followers will be asked to complete a survey. English-language

questionnaires will be handed out personally or sent via e-mail. It is a multi-source study:

team leaders and followers will receive different questionnaires. Questionnaires will include

individual codes to match the results of followers with their team leaders. Participants will be

informed about the procedure and aim of the survey, and will be debriefed afterwards about

the main results.

Measures

First of all, from all participants the demographic measures of gender, age, industry and team

tenure will be included. Next to that, for the team leaders the variables team size and tenure in

a leadership position will be included.

Consideration

To measure consideration, a subscale of the Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire

(LBDQ) will be used (Stogdill, Goode & Day, 1962). This is a self-report measure which

includes 100 questions about leader behaviour. For this study, the subscale referring to

consideration will be used. Since it is a self-report scale, and this study focuses on the

follower’s perspective, the items will be adapted such that they refer to the follower’s

perspective. The scale includes ten items to measure consideration, for example: “The team

leader is friendly and approachable” and “The team leader puts suggestions made by the

group into operation”. The measure uses a five-point Likert scale, ranging from A (1, never)

to E (5, always). Three items are formulated negatively and have a reversed scale.

Initiating structure

Initiating structure will also be measured by a subscale of the LBDQ (Stogdill et al., 1962).

The items will be adapted such that they refer to the follower’s perspective instead of a self-

report scale. The scale refers to structure and consists of ten items, such as: “The team leader

lets group members know what is expected of them” and “The team leader maintains definite

standards of performance. The measure uses a five-point Likert scale, ranging from A (1,

never) to E (5, always).

Self-monitoring

To measure self-monitoring the self-monitoring scale of Lennox and Wolfe (1984) will be

used. This scale is shown to have the best psychometric properties compared to other scales

measuring the construct of self-monitoring and is also the shortest scale (Day et al., 2002).
The self-report scale consists of 13 items, representing sensitivity to behavior of others and

ability to adapt behavior. Example items are: “I have found that I can adjust my behavior to

meet the requirements of any situation I find myself in.” and “My powers of intuition are

quite good when it comes to understanding others' emotions and motives”. The scale uses a

five-point Likert scale.

Team identification

Team identification will be measured with a self-report scale consisting of six items (Mael &

Ashfort, 1992; Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). The scale is adapted to the extent that

the object of the items will be the team. Furthermore, one item will be adapted in line with the

research of Giessner and colleagues (2013). The item: “If a story in the media criticized the

team, I would feel embarrassed” is changed into: “If a story criticized the team, I would feel

embarrassed” because the media are not likely to be involved in the sample of this study.

Examples of other items are: “When someone criticizes this team, it feels like a personal

insult” and “This team’s successes are my successes”. A five-point Likert scale is used,

ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

Pro-social motivation

Prosocial motivation will be measured using a scale developed by Grant (2008). The scale is

based on the self-regulation scales as developed by Ryan and Connell (1989). The self-report

scale consists of an introductory question (Why are you motivated to do your work) and four

items such as “Because I care about benefiting others through my work” and “Because it is

important to me to do good for others through my work”. The original scale uses a seven-

point Likert scale. In this study this will be adapted to a five-point Likert scale in order to

reach consistency in the scales used in this study.

 References

Ashfort, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of

Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2005). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Batson C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly altruistic? In B. Leonard (Ed.),

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 20, pp. 65–122). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.

Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., vol. 2, pp. 282–316). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Powell, A. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2008). Prosocial motivation. In J.

Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 135–149). New

York: Guilford Press.

Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 679.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., Pierro, A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Employees’ work effort

as a function of leader group prototypicality: the moderating role of team

identification. European Review of Applied Psychology, 58(2), 117-124.

Day, D. V., Shleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring

personality at work: a meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87(2), 390.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). Rational self-interest and other orientation in organizational

 behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journal

of Applied Psychology, 91, 1245-1252.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational

behavior: Implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 913–926.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fielding, K.S. & Hogg, M.A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: a

field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 1(1), 39–51.

Fleischman E.A. (1995). Consideration and structure: another look at their role in leadership

research. In F. Dansereau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level

approaches (pp. 51-60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). ‘To carve nature at its joints’: On the existence of

discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review, 92(3), 317-349.

Geier, J.G. (1967) A trait approach to the study of leadership in small groups, Journal of

Communication, 17(4), 316-323.

Giessner, S.R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P. & Sleebos, E (2013). Team-oriented

leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and

team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 658-667.

Grant A. M. (2007) Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference.

Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.

Grant A. M. (2008) Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in

predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology

93(1), 48–58.

Haslam, S.A. (2001). Psychology in organisations: The social identity approach. London:
 Sage.

House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

quarterly, 16, 321-338.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration

and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-

51.

Kahn, R. & Katz, D. (1960). Leadership practices in relation to productivity and morale. In D.

Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (2nd ed., pp.

554-570). Elmsford, NY: Row, Peterson.

Kilduff, M. & Day, D.V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on

managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 1047-1060.

Kirkpatrick, S.A. & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of

Management Executive, 5, 48-60.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.

Luthans, F. (1988) Successful vs. effective real managers. The Academy of Management

Executive, 2(2), 127-132.

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R.M., & Rosenkrantz, S.A. (1988) Real managers. Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. & Brass, D.J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-

monitors: Implications for workplace performance, Administrative Science Quarterly,

46(1), 121-146.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Newman, I. & Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring

the interactive continuum. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.

Richter, A.W., West, M.A., van Dick, R. & Dawson, J.F. (2006). Boundary spanners’

identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of

Management Journal, 49(6), 1252-69.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:

Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social

psychology, 57(5), 749.

Schriesheim C.A. & Kerr, S. (1974). Psychometric properties of the Ohio State leadership

scales. Psychological Bulletin, 81(11), 756-765.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.

New York: Freeman.

Solansky, S.T. (2011). Team identification: a determining factor of performance. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 247-258.

Stogdill, R.M. & Coons, A.E. (Eds.) (1951). Leader behavior: Its description and

measurement, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Stogdill, R.M., Goode, O.S., & Day, D.R. (1962). New leader behavior description subscales.

Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 259-269.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24).

Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).

Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Van Knippenberg, D. & Van Schie, E.C.M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational

identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(2), 137-

147.

Yukl, G.A. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in

leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308.

Zaccaro, S.J; Gilbert, J.A., Thor, K.K. & Mumford, M.D. (1991). Leadership and social

intelligence: linking social perspectiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader

effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 317-342.

 Appendix  A  

Leader Questionnaire

Self-monitoring 5-point (5= always

true, 1 = always
false)
1. In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that
something else is called for.
3. I have the ability to control the way I come across to people,
depending on the impression I wish to give them.
7. When I feel that the image I am portraying isn't working, I can readily
change it to something that does.
9. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and
different situations.
10. 1 have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements
of any situation I find myself in.
12. Even when it might be to my advantage, I have difficulty putting up
a good front.
13. Once I know what the situation calls for, it's easy for me to regulate
my actions accordingly.
2. I am often able to read people's true emotions correctly through their
eyes.
4. In conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the
facial expression of the person I'm conversing with.
5. My powers of intuition are quite good when it conies to
understanding others' emotions and motives.
6. I can usually tell when others consider a joke to be in bad taste, even
though they may laugh convincingly.
8. I can usually tell when I've said something inappropriate by reading it
in the listener's eyes.
11. If someone is lying to me, I usually know it at once from that
person's manner of expression.

Team Identification 5-point: 1=

strongly agree, 5 =
strongly disagree
When someone criticizes (name of team), it feels like a personal insult.
I am very interested in what others think about (name of team)
When I talk about this school, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’
This team’s successes are my successes
When someone praises this team, it feels like a personal compliment
If a story criticized the team, I would feel embarrassed
Prosocial Motivation
Why are you motivated to do your work? 5-point: 1=
strongly disagree,
5 = strongly agree
Because I care about benefiting others through my work
Because I want to help others through my work
Because I want to have positive impact on others
Because it is important to me to do good for others through my work
 Appendix  B  

Follower Questionnaire

Consideration 5-point (1= never,

5 = always)
The team leader is friendly and approachable

The team leader does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of

the group
The team leader puts suggestions made by the group into operation

The team leader treats all group members as my equals

The team leader gives advance notice of changes

The team leader keeps to him or herself *

The team leader looks out for the personal welfare of group members

The team leader is willing to make changes

The team leader refuses to explain his or her actions*

The team leader acts without consulting the group*

Initiating structure 5-point (1= never,

5 = always)
The team leader lets group members know what is expected of them

The team leader encourages the use of uniform procedures

The team leader tries out his or her ideas in the group

The team leader makes his or her attitudes clear to the group

The team leader decides what shall be done and how it shall be done

The team leader assigns group members to particular tasks

The team leader makes sure that his or her part in the group is
understood by the group members
The team leader schedules the work to be done

The team leader maintains definite standards of performance

The team leader asks group members to follow standard rules and
regulations